>Lizette, >You said you suppressed IGD1010I. Are you sure you got it in syslog without >suppressing it? > >Kees.
I just posted the initial message for the new thread. Therein, I say that I have found a case of IGD103I and IGD104I in syslog (without the IEF196I prefix). So I'm pretty sure if that STC was to allocate a new data set, the associated IGD101I would also appear in syslog. My conclusion: You can see IGD10xI messages in syslog for some (rare) cases, but not for the greater part. And this is *not* an effect of any message suppression mechanism. -- Peter Hunkeler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
